Here are the 2 links
http://dean.edwards.name/my/cssQuery/
http://code.google.com/p/ajaxslt/source/browse/trunk/xpath.js?spec=svn37&r=37

It seems that xpath has been enhanced since. But I guess selenium core code 
also.

I'd appreciate some help, anyway it's waiting for years now...

Thanks

Jacques
PS : Mmm, there seems to be a bad and a good news see 
http://markmail.org/message/a73qeqeyb4lokjzg
good : according to Brett xpath is not a problem (I was not sure when I wrote 
that 1st time)
bad : no news of Edwards Dean :/

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ashish Vijaywargiya 
  To: [email protected] 
  Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 1:48 PM
  Subject: Re: Dual licensing


  +1

  --
  Ashish

  Jacques Le Roux wrote: 
Interesting post. This closes the discussion we had some time (years) ago whith 
Chris Howe : Dual licensing is not a problem for 
ASL2 (as long as one licence is compatible)

Also about Selenium IDE, maybe, as Hans did for docbook, we could ask the 2 
persons who are listed here
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OFBIZ-680?focusedCommentId=12470728&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels%3Acomment-tabpanel#action_12470728
if we could use their tools with another ASL2 compatible licence. This would 
allow us to embedd Selenium (and the work done by 
Andrew Sykes)

Jacques

From: "Sam Ruby" <[email protected]>
  On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Ceki Gulcu <[email protected]> wrote:
    Hello,

I am curious about ASF's position on dual licensing. Given the
definitions in [1], if project P is dual licensed under both the EPL
(category B) and LGPL (category C), does the ASF consider P to be
licensed under category B or category C?

Since any distributor or any end-user can choose between the EPL and
LGPL at any time, including before or after distribution has occurred,
the ASF could consider P to be licensed under EPL (category B) without
prejudice to downstream actors (other than the terms of the EPL).
      Concrete example: http://docs.jquery.com/License

This is made available under a category A license, and it totally
acceptable for use by ASF projects.  The fact that it additionally is
made available under a different license does not impose any
additional restrictions on us.  This would be equally true if the
second license were proprietary.

The above assumes that we and our downstream users are the Licensees.
As licensors, we do not dual license our code.

    Cheers,

[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
      - Sam Ruby

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

    
  

Reply via email to